Tree advocates ‘furious’
Tree advocates are furious at the Government’s plan to overhaul the country’s planning laws, calling it ‘‘lazy’’ and ‘‘bad law’’ that could put more trees on the chopping block when coupled with intensification.
But the Government has pushed back, saying urban trees will be receiving even more protection, while councils could have canopy cover targets as cities, such as Christchurch, battle with decreasing cover from trees. However, some protections could take about eight years to kick in.
Environmentalists had been hoping for added protections in the overhaul of the country’s planning laws.
Environment Minister David Parker on Tuesday released the ‘‘overdue’’ reform of the resource management act (RMA), introduced to speed up builds, lower costs and better protect the environment.
Mels Barton of the organisation The Tree Council said the Government’s proposal was ‘‘worse than the RMA is now’’.
‘‘We’re furious.’’ She described it as ‘‘lazy . . . bad law’’.
Green Party environment spokesperson Eugenie Sage said the proposal was no improvement on the status quo and alongside more intensive development, ‘‘we’re losing our urban trees’’.
‘‘It only allows councils to protect trees if they identify individual trees or small groups of trees. It explicitly provides that councils cannot include in their plans general rules to require a resource consent for cutting down specific types of trees ... like coastal pōhutukawa for example, or mature oak trees.’’
Associate Environment Minister Phil Twyford said trees were ‘‘not only things of beauty in our neighbourhoods and they give us shade . . . they’re also really important to future-proof cities against climate change’’.
‘‘We are going to make it easier for councils to protect the really special trees that people love in their neighbourhoods . . . big, really old trees, sometimes called specimen trees.’’
Twyford said late next year, a national planning framework would be released to give direction to councils and require councils to have an urban forest strategy with a percentage canopy cover target.
‘‘It will make a significant difference,’’ he said. ‘‘Some councils like Auckland already do this.’’ But it could take up to eight years to implement.
Twyford said there was no question ‘‘urban intensification in our cities, which we must do to build more homes and build more successful cities, is putting pressure on urban trees’’.
‘‘But we’re not going to go back to the old days, pre-2009 where, theoretically, any property owner had to get a consent to cut a branch or prune a tree or cut a tree down, which was an unjustifiable burden on property owners.’’
Forestry scientist Jacqui Aimers previously said these changes had meant that without formal protection, trees on private land, regardless of age or biodiversity, can be removed.
Associate professor Justin Morgenroth of the University of Canterbury school of forestry said the benefits of urban trees included providing shade and the cooling of the atmosphere. He said the greatest reason was to ensure people living in cities had ‘‘a relatively cool environment during heat waves’’.
Morgenroth said the best way to increase tree coverage was to have a combination of ‘‘carrot and sticks’’, to cater to the retention and increase of trees on both private and public land.
A survey released earlier this year showed about 13.5% of Christchurch city was covered by tree canopy – down from 15.6% in 2015/16. Auckland had a coverage of 18.4% between 2016 and 2018, while in Wellington it was about 30.6% in 2019.
‘‘It only allows councils to protect trees if they identify individual trees or small groups of trees.’’ Eugenie Sage Green Party environment spokesperson